SHOBE

v.

FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION

TERRY B. PATTERSON, Circuit Judge.

This cause came on for final hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a summary final decree on the pleadings and was argued by counsel for the respective parties.

*66This case presents for consideration the validity of a resolution1 adopted by the Florida Real Estate Commission purportedly acting under the administrative authority conferred upon it by chapter 475, Florida Statutes 1951, known as the Real Estate License Law. The resolution, being promulgated and applied as a rule and regulation of the commission, is assigned as the sole basis for its refusal to issue to the plaintiff a registration certificate as a real estate *67salesman under the provisions of the Act cited. It is admitted by counsel and by the pleadings that if the resolution is invalid, plaintiff is entitled to be issued such certificate, but if the resolution is a valid exercise of the commission’s authority, plaintiff is in violation of it and therefore not entitled to such certificate. The validity of the resolution is thus the sole question to be decided.

The resolution in question, after setting forth the grounds upon which the commission deems the resolution advisable, proceeds to create, by definition, a sub-classification of real estate salesmen which it denominates “part-time salesmen,” being, as the term implies, generally those salesmen who engage in the vocation of real estate salesmen only on a part-time basis. The resolution further makes it a violation of the commission’s rules and regulations for a broker to hire or continue in employment a part-time salesman or for a registered salesman to engage in the vocation on a part-time basis.

The validity of the resolution in question can be determined by the application of familiar rules of law with regard to the scope of authority of administrative boards such as the commission to promulgate rules and regulations. Administrative boards or agencies, when empowered to do so, may make and enforce regulations to carry out powers definitely conferred on them, but they are not permitted to do more. The legislature cannot clothe them with more, nor may they assume to do more. The rule-making power of such' a board or agency is limited to the making of rules and regulations necessary for the enforcement of the Act being administered. The test of the validity of a rule or regulation is whether or not the Act defines a pattern to which the rule or regulation must be made to conform. See 11 Am. Jur. 956, State ex rel Hathaway v. Smith (Fla.), 35 So. 2d 650, Robbins v. Webb’s Drug Co. (Fla.), 16 So. 2d 121, and Richardson v. Baldwin (Fla.), 168 So. 255.

In this case the commission points to sections 475.05, 475.04 and 475.01 (3) as sufficient authority for the resolution, calling to its aid also its findings in the first section thereof.

It is not necessary to a decision in this case to controvert the wisdom- of prohibiting the practices mentioned in the resolution. It is sufficient to say that the Act in question is a complete legislative expression on the subject, sets out the qualifications of real estate salesmen and provides for their registration, the grounds for revocation and suspension, prohibits enumerated practices and provides penalties. Nowhere in the Act is it expressly provided or inferred that engaging in the vocation of a real estate salesman shall be limited to those applying to it their full time. If it was the legislature’s intent that part-time salesmen are harmful to the *68public interest, they must have said as much, and we must infer that they would have done so. The rule-making authority contained in section 475.05 must be read together with the other provisions of the Act and must be exercised within the limitations of the rules of law mentioned above.

It therefore follows that the regulation in question, having the effect of prohibiting the practice of part-time real estate salesmen, attempts a basic change in the Act itself, is legislative rather than administrative, and therefore falls beyond the proper authority of the commission and is invalid. The Act does not attempt an unlawful delegation of administrative power. Rather, that which has been properly delegated has been unlawfully exceeded.

This being so, it is unnecessary to consider other objections to the resolution.

It is therefore determined and declared that the above-described resolution of the Florida Real Estate Commission is void and unenforceable and the plaintiff is entitled to have his application for renewal of his registration certificate as a real estate salesman considered and acted upon by said commission without regard to the said resolution. Costs to plaintiff.